...One of the courses I have taught since 2001 has been "Introduction to Catholicism." Every semester in that "Introduction" class, I gave two lectures dealing with Catholic Moral positions. One was an explanation of Natural Moral Law as affirmed by the Church. The second was designed as an application of Natural Law Theory to a disputed issue in our society. Most of those semesters, my chosen topic was the moral status of homosexual acts. I would be happy to explain more fully the Catholic Church's position on this matter but, for the sake of brevity, I can summarize it as follows. A homosexual orientation is not morally wrong just as no moral guilt can be assigned to any inclination that a person has. However, based on natural moral law, the Church believes that homosexual acts are contrary to human nature and therefore morally wrong. This is what I taught in my class.

In previous years, I had students who might have disagreed with the Church's position but they did so respectfully and without incident. This semester (Spring 2010) I noticed the most vociferous reaction that I have ever had. It seemed out of proportion to all that I had known thus far. To help students understand better how this issue might be decided within competing moral systems, I sent them an email contrasting utilitarianism (in the populist sense) and natural moral law. If we take utilitarianism to be a kind of cost-benefit analysis, I tried to show them that under utilitarianism, homosexual acts would not be considered immoral whereas under natural moral law they would. This is because natural moral law, unlike utilitarianism, judges morality on the basis of the acts themselves... I was told that I would no longer be able to teach in the Department of Religion.

Professor Howell is a victim of the "Dictatorship of Relativism" which Pope Benedict XVI warned of. This is an egregious violation of constitutional rights and overt censorship of speech unpopular to the Cultural revolutionaries who have grabbed the reigns of Western society. Warning to all who hold that truth exists in an age which has followed the pied piper of relativism.

It’s a tad more complicated than that. Unlike nearly all other state universities in the USA, the U of I has an old agreement with the Newman Center to be able to offer religion courses for university credit. (This is common in Canada and the UK but not in the US.) The agreement goes back to around 1918.

It’s factually true that, if Howell has been fired by the university, the Newman Center’s courses taught by him would not get university credit.

I think the Newman Center caved and should not have, should have joined in a lawsuit, protested to the department head’s superiors etc.

I imagine they thought they needed to do this in order to keep their program going for fall. They undoubtedly had Howell scheduled to teach in the fall semester; students in his courses would have been denied credit and the NC wanted to ensure credit for them so they got another teacher.

I think they should have stood their ground and protested, made a huge stink about it. It seems to me that there might well be other, secular senior faculty in the university who can see that this was an egregious abuse of power. If an objective explanation of Philosophy X (with which I happen to agree personally) is hate speech, then no professor is free to make objective explanations of this or that unpopular philosophical or political or religious position.

There may have been more in the emails than we know, but I rather doubt it. The Newman Center was not so much wanting to be liked but just robotically trying to keep its program administered. That’s still bad, but different.

Stupid, yes. Naively unaware of the implications, perhaps. But I would chalk it up more to administrative inertia than just to wanting to be liked.

It’s a tad more complicated than that. Unlike nearly all other state universities in the USA, the U of I has an old agreement with the Newman Center to be able to offer religion courses for university credit. (This is common in Canada and the UK but not in the US.) The agreement goes back to around 1918.

It’s factually true that, if Howell has been fired by the university, the Newman Center’s courses taught by him would not get university credit.

I think the Newman Center caved and should not have, should have joined in a lawsuit, protested to the department head’s superiors etc.

I imagine they thought they needed to do this in order to keep their program going for fall. They undoubtedly had Howell scheduled to teach in the fall semester; students in his courses would have been denied credit and the NC wanted to ensure credit for them so they got another teacher.

I think they should have stood their ground and protested, made a huge stink about it. It seems to me that there might well be other, secular senior faculty in the university who can see that this was an egregious abuse of power. If an objective explanation of Philosophy X (with which I happen to agree personally) is hate speech, then no professor is free to make objective explanations of this or that unpopular philosophical or political or religious position.

There may have been more in the emails than we know, but I rather doubt it. The Newman Center was not so much wanting to be liked but just robotically trying to keep its program administered. That’s still bad, but different.

Stupid, yes. Naively unaware of the implications, perhaps. But I would chalk it up more to administrative inertia than just to wanting to be liked.

Uh, if you mean Msgr. Stuart Swetland, he has not been head of the Newman Center for a number of years now. You might want to check your facts before opining. He’s now academic vp at Mount St. Mary’s in Emmitsburg.

If this had happened when Msgr. Swetland was head of the Newman Center, I doubt they would have caved like this.

Well, the actions of the Univ. of Illinois are flatly unconstitutional. When government opens up a public forum limited for certain forms of free speech- such as a faculty courses on campus, it may discriminate on the basis of content (e.g. only courses leading to the degree may be allowed- not courses like the occult “sciences” ) but it may not discriminate on the basis of viewpoint. And this is what the Univ. of Illinois has done here.

Agreed. What makes you think I’m defending the U of Illinois? Actually, it’s the action of the head of the religion dept. which is at the center. The University now has a choice, to back up that dept. chair or throw him under the bus. The preliminary signs are that they will back him up, which is stupid but likely.

But they could, if they wanted to throw him under the bus. Let’s hope someone in upper adminstration, specifically in the General Counsel’s office, recognizes that his actions are big-time settlement lawsuit bait.

Well the university lawyers will soon let them know that what they did was unconstitutional and could result in re-instatement, back wages, attorneys fees, and punitive damages under a section 1983 civil right lawsuit.

A priest in our family spoke with Monsignor Swetland (in 2005) regarding the Newman Center and Catholicism on campus in general as our son was planning to attend (2010). Fr. gave positive reports back to us.

Earlier this year, our daughter (UIllinois '13) traveled to the March for Life in Washington with UIllinois, she went to a talk on campus by an official Church exorcist that was open to the public and very well attended, and she participated in an outdoor Confession that Newman Center sponsored that had 4-5 priests equally spaced on the square with a "giant" poster of Jesus at the center. There were also students at the ready to answer any questions the "puzzled" kids passing by might have. My daughter said it was like a scene out of a movie; she couldn't believe it was happening at UIllinois.

So it's really troubling the Newman Center has wimped out regarding Professor Howell, but I'm pleased that, through Professor Howell's "awesome" teachings, our daughter has met some extraordinary Catholics at UIllinois. Prayers for Professor Howell. Surely his replacement will be an ultra dud. Those that teach the Truth, get canned!

19
posted on 07/10/2010 9:03:17 AM PDT
by mlizzy
(Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee ...)

How do you figure the rich part? U of I wasn't paying his salary. It was paid on a grant. Aside from that the state of Illinois is in worse financial shape than California. State workers, including university employees, don't know if their paychecks will bounce. Reinstated would be cheaper all the way around in no small part because otherwise the state would be handing out an IOU.

This one's not over, but I wouldn't bet on either side. Something tells me it's going to be pretty nasty.

I hope he gets reinstated. Becoming rich won’t help out the students regarding their faith. We’re in his corner 100%. I’m eager to find out the story on Monsignor Ketchum, as to why he won’t support Howell.

23
posted on 07/10/2010 10:06:02 AM PDT
by mlizzy
(Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee ...)

So you think this attempt to stifle free thought on university campuses is acceptable? Universities are the places with least amount of free-thinking going on and have been turned into indoctrination centers by the left, all with taxpayer funding.

24
posted on 07/10/2010 12:50:22 PM PDT
by Ol' Sparky
(Liberal Republicans are the greater of two evils)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.